Storm chairman Matt Tripp took aim at Parramatta for what he saw as deliberately taking the dispute public, accusing the club of running to the media to control the narrative around the Zac Lomax saga. Tripp suggested the Eels chose headlines over resolution, portraying Lomax and Melbourne as acting in bad faith while ignoring the broader context — including the fact Parramatta would have gained adequate compensation for a player who had already vacated the club.
Tripp said Melbourne attempted to handle the matter quietly and professionally, offering compensation to avoid escalation, only for Parramatta to harden its stance and air the issue publicly. In his view, the decision to brief the media and frame the Storm as "villains" was unnecessary and misleading, turning a solvable contractual dispute into a drawn-out public fight that Parramatta itself helped inflame.
Replies
$500k isn't a reasonable offer considering the value of Lomax being an Australian and state of origin player! The money is really of no value to the Eels! The real question is the fact that Lomax has attempted now for the 3rd time in as many years to break! The point in Question should be the legality of this whole issue not dollar value! If the Eels are forced to concede then the legal system is of no value, contracts are of no value and it sets a terrible precedent for all of Rugby League
Good short article from Paul Crawley on Fox about this ...
https://www.foxsports.com.au/nrl/nrl-premiership/nrl-2026-zac-lomax...
Good to see a journalist calling it for what it is...
-
8
-
9
-
10
-
11
-
12
of 12 Next